“The average bra size has jumped from 34B in 1993 to a 34E in 2013, according to a new survey by lingerie retailer intimacy” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/bra-size-survey_n_3645267.html This change in body demographics means that nowadays more women have larger, heavier breasts. For many women, especially those with larger, heavier breast sizes, finding nightwear comfortable enough in which to sleep is a challenge. While a long T-shirt or a night shirt is comfortable for many people, these items do not provide any breast support that is desired by most women; especially larger breasted women. There are two predominant designs for “supportive” nightwear: (a) those that are “sleep bras” or involve integrated bras (usually soft cup bras with back- or front-hook closures, and other hardware such as underwires) or (b) those offering “shelf bra” support failure, a horizontal band of elastic cutting across the chest and/or around the whole torso. While these designs may provide some partial breast support, the support is binding and presses into the body leading to discomfort making it difficult to sleep for most women. This binding can lead to medical issues such as the aggravation of indigestion, GERD or reflux-type issues. These issues are frequently experienced by large-breasted women because of tight bra bands, especially while lying down or sleeping.
One design to eliminate the integrated bra and the horizontal band can be seen in U.S. Pat. No. 3,316,915. Disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,316,915 a nightgown with a bust support comprising a back portion made from a highly resilient and stretchable material, the back portion material being substantially continuous with the shoulder straps, and a front portion with a midriff section located underneath and supporting the breast cups that is made from a relatively inelastic or a stiff material. Though this design is snug and provides limited support, due to the inelasticity, it is still not comfortable. The design disclosed in '915 essentially offers stretch only across the back and in the straps (25, 28, 30), while the under-bust support offered by lower cup segment 32 and front midriff section 38, is recommended to be constructed of “a double-ply of non-elastic tricot.” This design is illogical, since this means the garment offers no stretch at all in the lower cups and front section, resulting in poorer fit and less comfort, and a much smaller range of accommodation of breast sizes and shapes. Larger breasts would fall or spill out of both aforementioned designs. Meanwhile, the free-flowing front panel 10 offers no support or shaping around the torso. The disclosed '519 garment was designed for when the average woman weighed 140 lbs. (1960 statistic). Today, women are larger. The average weight of women today (2011-2014) is 168.5 lbs., an increase of 20 lbs. or 14%. In addition, between 2011-2014, 38% of adult women were obese. '519 was filed in a time when average breast sixes were considerably smaller and with less of an overall range. While this design might accommodate breasts with cup sizes ranging from A to 8, possibly C, the fit and support would decrease in effectiveness as the cup size increased. The '519 garment would still be uncomfortable, would not stretch in the lower cups and front section. '519 was never designed for, and would be useless for, cup sizes of D and above, it would offer neither fit, comfort, nor support for these much heavier and more voluminous breasts.
Another design that does not utilize an integral bra or horizontal band is seen in U.S. Pat. No. 2,497,938, which discloses a slip to be worn under clothing. The design has a priority on maintaining a smooth surface under clothing to avoid bulkiness at the waistline and elsewhere, i.e. on the slip not riding up or twisting, '938 claims: “an improved combination slip and brassiere and claims that “elastic tension across the back [in combination with] the tension on the shoulder straps, produces a perfectly fitting garment”; “The bust portion of the garment is . . . molded by the tensions along the side seams . . . and the upward tension of the shoulder straps”; and “Bust panel is of non-elastic material and the back elastic panels pull “downwardly and upwardly respectively on the upper and lower portions of the bust pockets so as to shape the same and to produce a confining, uplift action.” The garment disclosed in '938 not meant to be worn on its own and there is little to no breast support. The idea that the “downward and upward pull” of the elastic back on the bust pockets will somehow provide an “uplift” action is physically impossible. Since the front breast panels of the garment have no horizontal seaming, at best—and assuming a very tight fit—the above-referenced upward/downward pull of the rear elastic combined with the non-elastic breast pocket would effectively just push breasts against the body “as they lie”. In other words, while the garment may offer a modicum of “confining” action if it is tightly fitted, there is no built-in structure offering upward lift to fight the pull of gravity downwards on the breast, nor any structured seaming around the outside curve of the breast to provide any side-inward support to counteract “side spillage” from the front compaction of the breasts by the non-elastic front breast panels. Furthermore, the non-elastic breast panels provide no center-anchoring between the breasts in the front of the garment, so there is no structure to hold the breasts in place individually, and no breast definition. This creates an undefined “uni-boob” mass across the front for breast cup volumes larger than an A or B cup. In addition, this design offers no consideration for the wearer's comfort. As designed and described here, the non-elastic front panels confine the breasts. For this to be true, the garment must fit very tightly, thereby smooshing the breasts against the body, which results in chafing and sweating of the breasts (especially larger breasts) if the fit is tight enough to provide confinement. Alternatively, if the garment fits loosely enough to be comfortable, it would not hold the breasts in place and would result or significant movement of the unsecured breasts up-and-down and side-to-side. The '938 design was filed in a time when average breast sizes were considerably smaller and the range in size was less. It might accommodate breasts with cup sizes ranging from A to B, possibly C, with the fit and support decreasing in effectiveness as the cup sire increased. It was never designed for—and would be useless for—cup sizes of D and above, and would offer neither fit, comfort, nor support, for these much heavier and more voluminous breasts.
Another purported design for a garment that gives breast support and comfort can be found in U.S. Pat. No. 8,585,458. The garment has a “Breast Support Housing” that is essentially an integrated bra, which depends upon an elastic band around the rib cage for the insignificant “shelf bra”-type support it provides. This still results in uncomfortable chafing and pressure around the rib cage. The “loose, unstructured nested areas or pockets” for the breasts are the only differentiator from other shelf-bra type products. Since the pockets do not provide any inward, forward or upward lift of the breast tissue, effectively the only thing the product provides is breast separation, by directing each breast into a pocket. However, there is no shaping or supporting of the breast against the downward pull of gravity.
While there is some light support provided by the “holding” action of the breast pockets, the pockets are unseamed and unmolded, and therefore the breast tissue spills in a natural, gravity-defined shape so that the visual profile provided by the product is still in effect, a bra-less one, and so it does not adequately address the modesty factor, as it purports to. Also, the pockets are designed for “bell” shaped breast and will not work as effectively for different breast shapes (firmer, rounder, pointier or narrower set).
Recent research by innovators in lingerie has documented 6 distinct breast shape type: https://www.thirdlove.com/pages/fit-finder #/breast_shape_question The different breast shapes present different fit challenges with increasing complexity as breast size and volume increases. This creates a need in the apparel arts for a garment that offers more robust support to the breasts, including not only under-breast support, but also inside- and outside—side support to hold the breasts not only “up” but also “in” and “apart” (3-way support). Also, the need today, to accommodate a larger volume of breast tissue means needing cups that expand in every direction—not only on the upper half of the breast, but around the full circle of the breast, underneath and around.
To date, no “leisure” garment meets this unique 3-way support challenge without resorting to bra-like construction with a tight, constrictive, often hooked band around the ribcage, and significant seaming or wiring around the cups (sacrificing comfort); OR ‘loose support’ such as the “shelf bra” which creates discomfort by binding around the chest and torso, and which does not offer enough hold or structure even to comfortably hold the breast up (fighting gravity), let alone to hold the breasts in (so as not to spill out to the sides) nor to shape the breasts in an attractive way.
What is needed is nightwear or a leisure garment that provides 3-way support as described above in which there is no “bra”, rid built-in horizontal shelf band, no hooks, no hardware, and no underwires, but still provides adequate breast support, and is comfortable, especially for women with larger, heavier breast sizes so as to allow them to sleep.